Do you have a "litmus test" setting for generic rule sets?

[Fenris-77]

We also shouldn't assume that with D&D that the various mechanics remain as-is in a different genre approach. If you take some mechanical steps to limit HP accrual the combat system works quite differently (as you can see with Shadowdark, for example).

 

[SableWyvern]

We also shouldn't assume that with D&D that the various mechanics remain as-is in a different genre approach. If you take some mechanical steps to limit HP accrual the combat system works quite differently (as you can see with Shadowdark, for example).

Yes, I was also thinking about things like the old d20 Vitality/Wounds or current Stars Without Number as options. If emulating gunfire is important, there are a wide range of options out there. And, of course, "silly ablative hitpoints" is always a potentially viable option, if that's the vibe that's wanted. And, if you're going the full-on GURPS route, all three of those, plus three others, will be available as part of a system of levers and dials -- complete with guidance as to the impact of each selection.

 

[Parmandur]

Hmm.

I'm not sure the D&D combat resolution system can easily be made generic. The whole stop-motion, one attack per N seconds to deplete X hit points, approach is clearly best for melee and hand-to-hand duels. It's wonkier for archery - what actually happens when an arrow "hits" a character and knocks of some hit points? And wonkier still for gunfire.

In 1977, for instance, Traveller opted for simultaneous resolution and no escalating hit points.

I think that example rather proves their point, people have used 3E and 5E for just about every genre and Setting.

 

[Parmandur]

And I'm fine leaving that choice up to the devs. Being a generic system isn't an inherent property of a rule system; it's a choice made in the presentation.

Any resolution system could be made generic if you're willing to do the work peeling off all the embedded setting conceits.

I'd say it is less presentation, and more about conscious design.

Take the Plotweaver system Brotherwise Games is using for the Cosmere games. By design, they are making it so that you can take an element from any Setting fir the game, and use it with another, so putting a Mistborn in a Space Opera. Similarly, you can make a character using GURPS Rome or GURPS Traveller and put both in a Discworld campaign.

You cannot, without a tremendous amount of work, make a Avatar: the Last Airbender character and insert them in a Monster of the Week game, despite using the same base mechanics.

 

[chuckdee]

Yeah, this is kind of what I was asking in my last post. What exactly is the distinction between a game that bills itself as a universal system and a system that gets used for many different games across several genres?

To me, there's a vast difference between a house system and a generic system. A house system is borne out of a setting first approach, with the system adaptations or hacks being separate. In many cases, that's exactly what they're called - hacks. They take a system meant for one thing, and apply it in a different direction.

A generic system does not bill itself around a particular setting, though one may be included for illustrative purposes and to get traction. It's billed as being system first. There is usually a bias in that system, but that is usually a feature, not a setting conceit, and within that bias, it is made as a toolkit to be applied liberally.

Examples of the former:
PbtA, FitD (which was a hack of PbtA), YZE, 2d20, etc.

Examples of the latter:
Fate, Savage Worlds, GURPS

Examples of systems that started out as the former, but are now billed as the latter:
Storyteller, Cypher, Cortex